I, like Benfer, always liked Loh's writing--her one on trying to get her kid into a private school was perfect and priceless.

But this last one just left me cold. Loh basically tries to rationalize her behavior by attacking the institution of marriage and pretty much claims that those of us who can keep a promise as innate fuddy-duddies (builders) who just don't value innovation and excitement.

Sorry, when all was said and done, Loh's marital break-up did read like a mid-life crisis sans sports car. Her pretense that the break-up of their family wasn't going to be a huge deal for her daughters is a convenient bit of self-deception.

And I don't need to read personal essays for self-deception--I can find that anyplace.

Now, it's just a question of waiting for the inevitable sadder, but wiser essay (with the requisite moaning about the lousiness of dating post-40 as a single mom) that we'll get a year or so from now.

particularly if you missed that Ellen is the fifth cylon.

What's it say if the couple with literally undying love is the very, very screwed up Saul and Ellen? In that flashback, by the way, it sounded as if they were human who were about to become Cylons.

In which case, the Resurrection ships began as resurrections--a fulfillment of the Christian promise of rebirth (thus, the Last Supper symbolism of the ad campaign). And the endless rebirth--well, everything has happened before and will happen again applies on a personal as well as a cosmic level. How many times have Ellen and Saul lived and destroyed one another? No wonder there's a Sanskrit chant at the beginning of the show.

If resurrection is possible what does that mean for Adama and the dying Roslin? Will she wanted to be downloaded--will she, like Kara, even have a choice?

Will Lee want Dee to come back?

Yeah, some of the writing was a bit clunky, but the possibilities opened up were genuinely interesting and moved from space opera into true science fiction.

It's also pretty clear that, yes, Moore had this idea very early on if not from the get-go.

Boil at 400, oil and seasoned. Cook 'til tender. Eat. Sunchokes, like most veggies, just aren't that hard.

Basic homecooking just isn't that hard, nor is it all that time consuming if you stick to basic preparations. What it does take is actually knowing something about ingredients. And, yes, the kids will eat it.

I don't know that Bittman's book is all that revolutionary--you can find simple recipes all over the place--the Joy of Cooking, Fannie Farmer, Deborah Madison's International Cooking for Everyone. Even the Chez Panisse cookbooks have their share of simple thrown-together recipes.

Home cooking has traditionally been plain straightforward cooking. No one needs to and no one should eat restaurant-style food every night. They just need to eat.

You're pretty cavalier in your dismissal of the ability to reproduce.

Of course, it's not that simple--that ability to reproduce requires a whole lot of other stuff--abilty to produce hormones, create certain sexual characteristics, nurse young.

There are actually a number of things throughout the body that differ between human males and female--very different pelvises, of course, but also things like the head of the femur--even the shape of the brains are different.

Part of the issue with transexual treatments is that they're actually pretty primitive--the main differences get addressed, but a lot of the subtle ones are left--the older the patient, the more true that is.

I've seen. I wouldn't automatically peg her has as a former man--the one giveaway is the size of the hands, but otherwise, the surgery was performed at a young-enough age to have been done well.

That said, I don't think she'd be anointed as a great beauty if she were born a woman. There's more than one XX female who's prettier than that in New York, though she could be a small-town beauty.

Have to say the whole transexual-women-are-real-women because they feel like women argument has always left me a bit cold. On one level it's claiming that biology isn't important while simultaneously insisting that externally mimicking that biology is. Ovaries, the uterus, and the ability to carry a child--primary sexual characteristics are irrelevant--but secondary characterics--breasts, facial hair, etc.--matter immensely. It becomes about looks and perception as opposed to function.

Jamie Clayton looks better than a lot of women--but the sad truth is that her limited function as a woman probably has hurt her relationships--if you're a man whose fantasy includes having biological kids you're going to think twice about the relationship. (This issue isn't exclusive to transexuals--it's part of the rotteness of being a woman over 45.) These aren't nice truths, they're certainly not PC, but they're there.

Mind your own garden? You obsessively post about Havrilesky's column. I mean, dude, when you're opining on shows you've never-ever seen just so you can get in your Havrilesky jab, you've got issues.

Of *course*, it's a pathetic cry for attention. If you want to pretend even to yourself that it's not, try to watch a couple of ads for the show in question before spouting off.

And, no, Heather is not going to be dating you, let it go.